MR. SEENISUBBANAICKER SUNDARARJAPERUMAL, TUTICORIN V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI

ITA 968/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5989 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 251

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ायपीठ,चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI ी महावीर िसंह, माननीय उपा , एवं ी मनोज कु मार अ वाल, माननीय लेखा सद के सम BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.968/Chny/2020 िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr.Seenisubbanaicker- Sundararajaperumal, 5/36, PerumalKoil North Street, Pottalurani Village, Ellainaikenpatti, Srivaikuntam Taluk, Tuticorin-628 851. v. The Principal Commissioner- of Income Tax, Madurai-1, Madurai. [PAN:CVUPS 3477 C] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( थ /Respondent) अपीलाथ कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr.V.S.Jayakumar, Adv. थ कीओरसे /Respondent by : Mr.R.N.Siddhappaji, CIT सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.03.2022 घोषणाकीतारीख/Dt. of Pronouncement : 28.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the revision order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai-1, Madurai, in C.No.401/5/PCIT/MDU-2/2019-20 dated 19.06.2020. The assessment was framed by the ITO, Ward-4, Tuticorin, for the AY 2015-16,u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) vide his order dated13.12.2017. ITA No.968/Chny/2020 :- 2 -: 2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 21 days and the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay along with supportive affidavit of the assessee. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee before us stated that the revision order passed by the PCIT on 19.06.2020, which was received by the assessee on 24.09.2020. The due date for filing of appeal before the ITAT was 23.11.2020, but actually the appeal was filed only on 11.12.2020. Thereby, there was a delay of 21 days. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee before us stated that the delay in filing of the appeal is due to prevalent COVID-19 pandemic. We noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 vide order dated 23.03.2020 has given directions that the delay is to be condoned during this period 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and they have condoned the delay up to 28.02.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 vide order dated 10.01.2022. In term of the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, first of all, took us through the concise Ground Nos.1-4, which reads as under: 1 . The Order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai-1, passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The PCIT erred in passing the Order ex-parte without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and the order violates the principles of natural justice. 3. The Order passed by the Assessing Officer, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in so far as it relates to the acceptance of the submissions made by your Appellant. 4. The PCIT erred in stating that the Assessing Officer failed to verify the claims of the Appellant and consequently the said order of Assessing Officer has to be set aside. ITA No.968/Chny/2020 :- 3 -: 4. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the order of the PCIT is ex-parte and the PCIT has not allowed opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee took us through Para No.4 of the PCIT’s Order that a letter dated 11.02.2020 was sent to PCIT requesting for adjournment and again the matter was fixed for hearing on 10.03.2020 and a request letter was sent vide letter dated 03.03.2020 to appear. The assessee filed Written Submissions on 27.02.2019, which were reproduced in the order of the PCIT. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the PCIT has noted the dates of hearing i.e. 18.02.2020 & 10.03.2020. According to the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, although the matter was fixed for hearing twice, on both the dates the assessee requested for adjournment and Written Submissions were filed and request was made for personal hearing vide letter dated 27.02.2019. The relevant request reads as under: “.....In view of the above submissions and such further submissions that may be, put forth before you in the course of personal hearing when an opportunity to appear before you in person is afforded to me, I humbly request you to not proceed with the assumption of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income an, Tax Act, 1961 and drop the proceedings so as to render equity and justice." 5. When these facts were confronted to the ld.Sr.DR, he again narrated the same dates stating that opportunities were given to the assessee, but he did not avail the same on two occasions. Hence, he stated that there is no violation of principles of natural justice. He opposed the plea of the assessee and stated that the matter may be heard on merits. ITA No.968/Chny/2020 :- 4 -: 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the case records on the issue of violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the assessee has made request for personal hearing, which was not granted by the PCIT on two occasions, matter was fixed for hearing but the assessee filed details on one occasion and another, request for adjournment was made. In our view, this is not sufficient opportunities and the PCIT has violated the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the order of the PCIT should be quashed as there is a violation of principles of natural justice, for this he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sona Builders v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2001) 251 ITR 0197 (SC). 7. We have noted in the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision that having regard to the statutory limit within which the appropriate authority has to Act, that was passed and hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the order. In our case, the facts are different, no doubt the PCIT has fixed the matter on two occasions and the assessee has responded by filing submissions, but personal hearing was not granted. This is curable defect according to us and hence, one more opportunity to be given to the assessee to represent his case personally. Hence, to grant personal hearing, we set aside the order of the PCIT and direct him to allow one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the PCIT is ITA No.968/Chny/2020 :- 5 -: set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the PCIT for fresh adjudication. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 28 th day of March, 2022, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कु मार अ वाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (महावीर िसंह) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा /VICE PRESIDENT चे ई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated: 28 th March, 2022. TLN आदेशकी ितिलिपअ'ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 4. आयकरआयु(/CIT 2. थ /Respondent 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 3. आयकरआयु( (अपील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड फाईल/GF